IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

HIERARCHICAL ZONE BASED STABLE

POWER OPTIMISATION IN WIRELESS
SENSOR NETWORKS
Vikram Ruhil1, Ravikant Kaushik2
1
M.Tech Student,SKITM Bahadurgarh
2
Guide,Assistant Professor,SKITM Bahadurgarh

ABSTRACT
In this paper we purpose the mobility of a sink in improved energy efficient PEGASIS-based protocol(IEEPB) to
advance the network lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks(WSN).In this a multi chain model having a sink mobility
is proposed to achieve proficient energy utilization of wireless sensors . The motorized movement of mobile sink is
steered by petrol or current, there is a need to confine this movement to a boundary and in a fixed trajectory. An
Algorithm is being developed for the trajectory of mobile sink.
Keywords Wireless Sensor Networks, Sink Mobility
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless Sensor Networks are rapidly growing area of research and commercial development. Meanwhile it draws
attention of many researchers because of the enormous scope of its applications in numerous areas. A Wireless Sensor
Network (WSN) consists of large number of spatially distributed autonomous sensors to monitor physical environment
conditions, such as temperature, sound, humidity, pressure, light etc. and pass their data often called raw data through
the network to Base Station which is often called Sink. The sink forms the gateway between the WSN and end-user
application. The actual implementation of a wireless sensor network is widely used in many areas, especially in military
applications, biological and health applications, environmental applications and some commercial applications.

II. WIRELESS SENSOR MODEL AND NODE

The sensor network model consisting of large numbers of sensor nodes deployed over a large geographic area (sensing
field). After detecting an event sensor nodes transfer their data to sink node through multi-hop communication
paradigm. In this case both the sink node and sensor nodes are static.

Fig. 1 Wireless Sensor Network Model

A sensor node is a node in a wireless sensor network that is capable of performing some processing, gathering sensory
information and communicating with other connected nodes in the network. The typical architecture of the sensor node
is shown in Figure 1.2. The main components of a sensor node as seen from the figure are microcontroller, transceiver,
external memory, power source and one or more sensors.

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 9

 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

Fig 2.: A typical architecture of the sensor node

Sensor nodes can be deployed in a WSN in two ways:
Manual: Location of each sensor node is planned with required level of precision e.g. fire alarm sensors in a building,
habitat monitoring, sensors planted underground for precision agriculture.
Random: Locations of sensor nodes are random e.g. airdropped in a disaster hit area or war fields.
A. Applications of WSN
Current and potential applications of sensor networks include: military sensing, physical security, air traffic control,
traffic surveillance, video surveillance, industrial and manufacturing automation, distributed robotics, environment
monitoring, and building and structures monitoring.
(a) Environment and Habitat Monitoring: Environment and habitat monitoring is a natural candidate for applying
sensor networks, since the variables to be monitored, e.g., temperature, are usually distributed over a large region.
(b) Security Monitoring: Our second class of sensor network application is security monitoring. Security monitoring
networks are composed of nodes that are placed at fixed locations throughout an environment that continually monitor
one or more sensors to detect an anomaly. A key difference between security monitoring and environmental monitoring
is that security networks are not actually collecting any data
(c) Infrastructure Security: Sensor networks can be used for infrastructure security and counterterrorism applications.
Critical buildings and facilities such as power plants and communication centers have to be protected from potential
terrorists. Networks of video, acoustic, and other sensors can be deployed around these facilities.
(d) Military Applications: Because most of the elemental knowledge of sensor networks is basic on the defense
application at the beginning, especially two important programs the Distributed Sensor Networks (DSN) and the Sensor
Information Technology (SenIT) form the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), sensor networks are
applied very successfully in the military sensing.
(e)Traffic Control:Sensor networks have been used for vehicle traffic monitoring and control for quite a while. Most
traffic intersections have either overhead or buried sensors to detect vehicles and control traffic lights. Furthermore,
video cameras are frequently used to monitor road segments with heavy traffic, with the video sent to human operators
at central locations. However, these sensors and the communication network that connect them are costly; thus, traffic
monitoring is generally limited to a few critical points. Inexpensive wireless ad hoc networks will completely change
the landscape of traffic monitoring and control.
B Why Different WSN Protocol
Routing in WSNs is very challenging due to the inherent characteristics that distinguish these networks from other
wireless networks like mobile ad hoc networks. A sensor node in general serves a unique need in an application where
ad-hoc nodes are found to be more generic. Some examples of the ad-hoc device could include a PDA, laptop PC or a
cellular phone.Tthe key distinguishable differences are
(a) Network Size: The sizes of the wireless sensor network can ran into thousands, perhaps in future even into
millions, e.g. (small dust). On the other hand, ad-hoc network usually consist of smaller number of nodes. One aspect
that could also be included in this area is the problem of localization. If the sensor network is deployed over a large
geographical area there may exist a need to know the location of that node, else the sensed information may be useless.

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 10

 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

(b) Node Density: Some applications in WSN area only require a small number of nodes covering a specific area, but
the idea is that there would be some form of redundancy where the ratio of nodes per square meter is larger than that of
traditional ad-hoc network
(c) Node proneness to failure: The energy that is available to an ad-hoc node is usually replenishable via recharging
or swapping out the batteries. This is not always the case or even an available option with the sensor node. Unless some
form of power scavenging is performed, a sensor node is left with the energy reserves that it was given at the start.
(e) Communication paradigm employed: Communication between wirelesses nodes are broadcast and are received by
allnodes within reception range. Ad-hoc networks usually use point to point communication as they are in direct
contact with their sink node. An ad-hoc node also has a more intelligent and powerful routing protocol.
(f) Resource limitations of nodes: The two main limitations for a sensor node include the available bandwidth and the
afore mentioned energy reserves. The available bandwidth of an ad-hoc network is usually greater (11 Mbps) than that
of a sensor node (250kbps). All the components are smaller and are limited than their counterparts on ad-hoc nodes.
Some of these components include; memory, processor, transceiver, and batteries.
III. MOTIVATION TO IMPROVED EFFICIENCY PROTOCOL
Wireless sensor networks are battery operated. The sensor nodes of Wireless Sensor Network have limited source of
energy when it is deployed in real time environment. The entire network rely on this energy to detect an event, collect
information from environment, data aggregation and communicate with base station.The main challenges are how to
maximize the network lifetime using minimum energy resource. Research has shown that nodes near the sink deplete
their battery power faster than the nodes apart due to heavy overhead of messages from nodes that are far away from
sink node.

Sensors nearby sink are shared by more sensors to sink paths therefore consume more energy. The result is the nodes
nearby sink nodes deplete their energy faster than the other nodes which leads to premature disconnection of the
networks and sink got isolated from the network, while all other nodes are fully operational along with the sink. This
problem is known as hotspot problem, leads to a premature disconnection of the network.

In recent years, researchers propose numerous chain based protocols such as PEGASIS,EEPB and IEEPB.Among them,
IEEPB reduces the construction of long link (LL) in chain by using threshold. Furthermore, it employs the residual
energy and the calculated weight of sensor nodes to compute the chain head of the chain. Latest proposals show that
sink mobility is highly advantageous in enhancing the network lifetime. MLMD and PNLCM are two prominent
research works that verify the effectiveness of sink mobility in MSNs. In PEGASIS, network lifetime is considered as a
sole metric for competence but minimization of data delivery delay is also an important acquirement.. In the domain of
multi-path routing, recent researches show that there is a space for enhancements and evolution.

When IEEPB builds a chain, there is a major load onthe single chain leader due to distance between sink and itself,
which causes much energy consumption. A large delay in data delivery exists due to long single chain so it is not well
suited for delay-sensitive applications. The sparse nodes of the network in instability period are badly affected due to
long mutual distances. In this thesis, we investigate the problems of long chain for efficient energy consumption and
delay in data delivery considering sink mobility. We spotlight on the notion of fixed path mobility and confine the sink
to limited potential locations. We also diminish the load on the single chain leader by launching the notion of multi-
head chains. On the basis of afore-
mentioned investigation, this paper presents mobile sink improved energy-efficient PEGASIS-based routing protocol
(MIEEPB). MIEEPB introduces the sink mobility in the multi-chain model, therefore achieving smaller chains and
decreasing load on the leader nodes

IV. OBJECTIVE
Based on the above analysis, this paper presents mobile sink improved energy-efficient PEGASIS-based routing
protocol (MIEEPB).
The main steps in operations of MIEEPB are following:-
1. Physical division of network using uniform random distribution
2. Multi-Chain construction
3. Chain Leaders selection

The two main subsections further describing sink mobility are:-

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 11

 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

1. Sink Mobility
2. Proposed Algorithm for Sink Mobility
3. Data Transmission
4. Data Aggregation using DCS

V. NETWORK OPERRATIONS OF PROPOSED MIEEP

The main steps in operations of MIEEPB are following.

A. Network Model: We consider a 100m x 100m area for WSN. In our scenario, 100 nodes are deployed in which 25,
25 nodes are further divided randomly in equally spaced area using uniform random distribution. We assume sink
mobility as the sink moves through the centre of equally spaced regions and complete its full trajectory in 1 entire
round. Sink stays at sojourn location for specific time duration known as sojourn time. Like IEEPB, we ignore the effect
of signal interference in wireless channel. We employ first order radio model to calculate energy consumption in data
transmission by sensors.

Etx(k,d)=Etx-elec(k)+Etx-amp(k,d) ..(1)
E(k)=E-lec(k).... (2)
EDA(k)=EDAelec(k) (3)

According to first order radio model, Eelec = 50 nJ/bit is consumed by the radio to run the transmitter or receiver
circuitry and Eamp = 100 pJ/bit/m is required for transmitter amplifier, where k are number of bits and d is distance.
Transmitter circuitry also consumes EDA = 50 nJ/bit to aggregate the data received by the child nodes. The sink
divides the area into 4 equal regions in which nodes are deployed by uniform random distribution. The sink moves in
these regions 1 by 1, with the particular speed and completes its course in a round. Each sensor compresses the received
bits by a data aggregation (DA) factor of 0.6 using distributed compressive sampling.
Multi-Chain Construction: The procedure of chain building is same as of PEGASIS. In MIEEPB, there are 4 chains in
our proposal so chain formation occurs in following way. Sink sends hello packet to all the nodes to get information of
all the nodes. Sink finds the arthest node by comparing the distances of all the nodes from itself in first region. The
chain formation starts from the farthest node I also known as end nodes. The end node finds the nearest node from
itself. Therefore, each node finds the and then connects with it following the same approach. In the chain, each node i
receiving data from the node j, acts as a parent to node j, whereas node j acts as a child to node i. The same process of
chain formation repeats in all 4 regions and thus, 4 chains are created.

Chain Leaders Selection: In this section, chain chooses the first chain leader on the basis of weight Q assigned to each
node. Each node computes its weight Q by dividing its residual energy with its distance from the base station. The
network compares the weights of all the nodes in chain. The network computes the node having highest weight and
judges it as primary chain leader of the chain. After the chain formation, each node i computes its distance dp with the
parent node and then, compares it with the distance db3 to the sink. If the later distance is less (dp d ), the node i acts
as a secondary chain head and sends the collected data to the sink, instead of transferring it to parent node.
Qi=Ei/Di (4)
where Ei denotes the residual energy of sensor node I while Di indicates the distance between sensor node i and sink.

B. Sink Mobility: We consider that sink has unlimited amount of energy and its mobility is used to maximize the
network lifetime. Sink moves in WSN in a fixed trajectory, travels from one region to the other and waits for a sojourn
time at sojourn location. Sojourn time is the time interval for which sink stays at specific position and gets data from
the chain leaders. Sojourn location is the location where the sink temporarily stays for data collection.

VI. ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE

In this section we assess the performance of sink mobility in multi-chain IEEPB using MATLAB. We consider a 100m
x 100m area for WSN. Our proposed scenario consists of 100 nodes, in which 25, 25 nodes are further divided
arbitrarily in equally spaced 4 regions. Sink mobility is proposed as the sink moves about the centers of equally spaced
regions and complete its course in 1 round. The simulation parameters are given in Table 1

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 12

 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

Table 1: Parameters for Simulation

Round 5000
Network Size 100*100
Node Number 100
(33m,25m) (33m,75m)
BS Sojourn location (66m,25m) (66m,75m)
Initial Energy of Normal 0.5j
nodes
Data Aggregation Factor 0.6
Packet size 2000 bits
BS location in IEEPB (0m, 0m)

In MIEEPB, first node dies at about 1500 round which is far better than the stability period of IEEPB. Furthermore, the
lifetime of first 10 nodes is much improved than of the afore-mentioned techniques due to reduction of load on the
chain heads, thus causing global load balancing in the network. In multi-chain concept, distances between the
connected nodes are less than single chain therefore; energy consumed in data transmission is less than the single
chain. Residual energy of network in MIEEPB decreases more slowly than in IEEPB. In MIEEPB, network lifetime is
79% better than the earlier technique due to efficient energy utilization. The whole network dies at 2400 rounds in
IEEPB while in our proposed method network dies at 4300 rounds, so instability time in MIEEPB is 86 % more than
the other protocols. The multi-head chain model removes the long link (LL) problem by sending data directly to the
sink in case of remote parent node.

It further diminishes the delay in data delivery to base station. Figure 3 shows the assessment of MIEEPB and IEEPB
in terms of the dead nodes. In IEEPB, the number of dead nodes undergoes sudden increase due to the long link
problem in the chain after about 1600 rounds. At that instant, the distant nodes consume much energy due to long link
problem after the dying of first 25 nodes. Because of minor chains in our proposed scheme, there are not much longer
distances between the remaining nodes of the multi-chains after the dying of first 25 nodes in all 4 regions. There is a
less data delivery delay in leader and the sink is smaller in last 1000 rounds due to the sink mobility.As the network
lifetime of MIEEPB is significantly greater than the earlier one, it means that the nodes transmits more packets to BS
(i-e the throughput is high). During last 1000 rounds of instability period, nodes density is notably low, a lot of empty
spaces (in term of the coverage) are formed, due to which network gets sparse. In spite of large empty spaces, our
proposed technique provides better coverage in last 1000 rounds than of IEEPB, because of this BS receives additional
packets in our proposed scenario. From Simulation results in Figure3,we estimate that the instability period of MIEEPB
largely increases due to the sink mobility and provides better coverage. Furthermore, it is better for the delay sensitive
applications due to smaller chains. In our simulations, all the nodes have equal amount of initial energy of 0.5 joules.
The nodes are termed as dead, if they losses all of their energy therefore, they drop transmitting or receiving
capabilities.

Fig.3: Network Lifetime Graph

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 13

 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

Fig.4 Comparison of Dead nodes in MIEEPB, IEEPB, EEPB and PEGASIS

In MIEEPB, first node dies at about 1500 round which is far better than the stability period of IEEPB. Furthermore, the
lifetime of first 10 nodes is much improved than of the afore-mentioned techniques due to reduction of load on the
chain heads, thus causing global load balancing in the network. In multi-chain concept, distances between the
connected nodes are less than single chain therefore; energy consumed in data transmission is less than the single
chain. Residual energy of network in MIEEPB decreases more slowly than in IEEPB. In MIEEPB, network lifetime is
79% better than the earlier technique due to efficient energy utilization. The whole network dies at 2400 rounds in
IEEPB while in our proposed method network dies at 4300 rounds, so instability time in MIEEPB is 86 % more than
the other protocols.

The multi-head chain model removes the long link (LL) problem by sending data directly to the sink in case of remote
parent node. It further diminishes the delay in data delivery to base station. Figure 4 shows the assessment of MIEEPB
and IEEPB in terms of the dead nodes. In IEEPB, the number of dead nodes undergoes sudden increase due to the long
link problem in the chain after about 1600 rounds. At that instant, the distant nodes consume much energy due to long
link problem after the dying of first 25 nodes. Because of minor chains in our proposed scheme, there are not much
longer distances between the remaining nodes of the multi-chains after the dying of first 25 nodes in all 4 regions.
There is a less data delivery delay in leader and the sink is smaller in last 1000 rounds due to the sink mobility

As the network lifetime of MIEEPB is significantly greater than the earlier one, it means that the nodes transmits more
packets to BS (i-e the throughput is high). During last 1000 rounds of instability period, nodes density is notably low, a
lot of empty spaces (in term of the coverage) are formed, due to which network gets sparse. In spite of large empty
spaces, our proposed technique provides better coverage in last 1000 rounds than of IEEPB, because of this BS receives
additional packets in our proposed scenario. From Simulation results in Figure 1, we estimate that the instability period
of MIEEPB largely increases due to the sink mobility and provides better coverage. Furthermore, it is better for the
delay sensitive applications due to smaller chains. In our simulations, all the nodes have equal amount of initial energy
of 0.5 joules. The nodes are termed as dead, if they losses all of their energy therefore, they drop transmitting or
receiving capabilities.

The energy distribution on both scenarios is almost equal. Simulation result shows that the residual energy of network
over rounds decreases gradually in both techniques, but there is much efficient energy consumption in our proposed
technique. In IEEPB, cluster head sends the data to sink and the larger amount of energy is utilized due to long
distance between chain leader and sink. In MIEEPB, chain leaders consume less energy for this purpose due to sink
mobility which causes less distance between the chain leaders and the sink. Figure 4 presents the comparison of
normalized average energy consumption of the MIEEPB with other protocols.
Simulation results show the normalized average energy consumption of sensor nodes over rounds in MIEEPB is 2 %
better than the previous methods. The distance among sparse nodes themselves and the base station is fewer than in
IEEPB; this practice saves plenty of energy
VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
In this paper, we recommend a multi-chain model of PEGASIS along with induction of sink mobility to maximize the
network lifetime. Our considerations are supportive in diminishing the delay in data delivery and distances between the
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 14
 IPASJ International Journal of Electronics & Communication (IIJEC)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJEC/IIJEC.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijec@ipasj.org
Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 ISSN 2321-5984

connected nodes through smaller chains. Sink mobility not only lessens the load on the chain leaders in starting rounds,
but also reduces the stress on the sparse nodes at the end of network lifetime. We also propose an algorithm for fixed
path sink mobility in our model. Sink mobility has major advantages on static sink in enhancing the network lifetime.
As for future directions, we are striving to get much better sink mobility specifically toward chain leaders of chains in
WSN.
REFERENCES
[1] ArslanMunir, Student Member, IEEE, And Ann Gordon-Ross, Member, IEEE, An MDP-Based Dynamic
Optimization Methodology For Wireless Sensor Networks ,IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND
DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS. VOL 23, NO.24, APRIL 2012.
[2] Debmalya Bhattacharya And R.Krishnamoorthy, Power Optimization In Wireless Sensor Networks,IJCSI,Vol. 8,
Issue 5, No. 2, September 2011 .
[3] SurendraBilouhan, Prof. Roopam Gupta, Optimization Of Power Consumption In Wireless Sensor Network
,International Journal Of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 5,May 2011.
[4]. By Poojasethi, NavneetvermaEnergy Efficient Centralized Hierarchical Routing Protocol For Wireless Sensor
Network In National Workshop-Cum-Conference On Recent Trends In Mathematics And Computing (RTMC)
2011 Proceedings Published In International Journal Of Computer Applications (IJCA) 15.
[5] Dionisiskandris, Panagiotistsioumas, Anthony Tzes, Nikolaospantazis, And Limitrios D. Vergados, Hierarchical
Energy Efficient Routing In Wireless Sensor Networks, 16th Mediterranean Conference On Control And
Automation Congress Centre, Ajaccio, France June 25- 27, 2008.
[6] N. . Pantazis, And D. D. Vergados, A Survey On Power Control Issues In Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE
Communications Surveys, 4th Quarter, Vol. 9, No. 4, Pp. 86-107, 2007.
[7] H. Pham, D. Pediaditakis, And A. Boulis.From Simulation To Real Deployments In WSN And Back.In T2pwsn
2007, 2007.
[8] NS-2 Networking Simulator, Http://Www.Isi.Edu/Nsnam/Ns/, Accessed In January 2007.
[9]Nikolaos A. Pantazis, Dimitrios J. Vergados, Dimitrios D. Vergados, Increasing Intelligent Wireless Sensor
Networks Survivability By Applying Energy-Efficient Schemes, In Proceedings Of The 3rd IFIP Conference On
Artificial Intelligence Innovations & Applications (AIAI 2006), Athens, Greece , June 2006 .
[10]Siva D. Muruganathan, Daniel C. F. Ma, Rolly I. Bhasin, And Abraham O. Fapojuwo A Centralized Energy-
Efficient Routing Protocol For Wireless Sensor Networks 0163-6804/05 2005 IeeeIeee Radio Communications
March 2005
[11]K. Akkaya And M. Younis, A Survey Of Routing Protocols In Wireless Sensor Networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc
Network Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3 Pp. 325-349, 2005.
[12] C.Leuschner, The Design Of A Simple Energy Efficient Routing Protocol To Improve Wireless Sensor
Network Lifetime, Masters Thesis, Electrical, Electronic And Computer Engineering, University Of Retoria, April
2005.[Online]. Available: Http://Upetd.Up.Ac.Za/Thesis/Available/Etd-01242006-
091709/Unrestricted/00dissertation.Pdf.
[13] J.N Al-Karaki, And A.E. Kamal, Routing Techniques In Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey, IEEE Wireless
Communications, Vol. 11, No. 6, Pp.6-28, December 2004.
[14] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, J. Heidemann, And F. Silva, Directed Diffusion For Wireless Sensor
Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions On Networking, Vol. 11, Pp. 216, Feb 2003
[15] S. Servetto And G. Barrenechea, Constrained Random Walks On Random Graphs: Routing Algorithms For
Large Scale Wireless Sensornetworks, In Proc. Of The 1st ACM International Workshop On Wireless Sensor
Networks And Applications, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2002.
[16] D. BraginskyAnd D. Estrin, Rumor Routing Algorithm For Sensor Networks, In Proc. Of The 1st ACM
International Workshop OnWirelesssensor Networks And Applications, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2002, Pp. 22-31.
[17] S. Lindsey, C. Raghavendra, And K. M. Sivalingam, Data Gathering Algorithms In Sensor Networks Using
Energy Metrics, IEEE Trans. Parallel And Distrib. Sys., Vol. 13, No. 9, Sept. 2002, Pp. 92435.
[18] W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, And H. Balakrishnan, An Application-Specific Protocol Architecture
For Wireless Microsensor Networks, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Vol. 1, No. 4, Oct. 2002, Pp. 66070.
[19] I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, And E. Cayirci, Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey, Computer
Networks (Elsevier), Vol. 38, Pp. 393422, 2002.
[20] R. Shah And J. Rabaey, "Energy Aware Routing For Low Energy Ad Hoc Sensor Networks", In The Proceedings
Of The IEEE Wireless Communications And Networking Conference (WCNC), March 2002, Orlando, Florida,
USA, Vol 1, 2002, Pp. 350-355

Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2017 Page 15